gender studies question, has anyone noticed?

Question

1) Has anyone noticed some people's tendencies to follow broad gender stereotypes to justify their own actions and treatment of or prejudices of other people they may have never met?

2) Anyone else notice that "gender" is a lot of nonsense that is constantly contradicting itself?

Both the women's studies and LGBTQ sections deal with gender a lot. I don't know how many times i've come across really base stereotypical reasoning that gender-generalizes people as if humans were only gendered objects and carbon cut-outs.
I
3) If you havent ever noticed this and you disagree with me please feel free to make your debate.

Thank you all for sharing your perspectives! I realize that different people have access to different information and experiences and this has influence the answers that they've left.

My own experience with information is this: There are more than two sexes. Chromosomally, we have mapped more than 9 genetic sexes and possibly as many as 30. i don't recall the citation for these, however in 2004 we had mapped at least 4 ("Kaleidoscope of Gender: Prisms, Patterns, and Possibilities" Source Type: Text Book)

xx, xy, xyx, xo, xxx <-4 chromosomal "sexes".
There are other types of sexing among which some are: Chromosomal, gonadal, and hormonal. Of gonadal there can be those with two testicles; two ovaries; one testicle and one ovary; no gonads.
Human sex developement is so varied that there is not a set size or shape that genitals come in. Hormone levels vary and levels are often generalized (which helps the medical community avoid run ins with fact contradictions.

The information I've studied about gender is that there is no universal experience of masculinity or femininity. the concept of only two genders is not universal. Gender changes over time and across cultures.
Also, bodies can be bread to be different sizes, fat contents, muscle content, etc. through gene selection. Cultural gender expectations throughout the millenia often dictate what bodies are most attractive or desireable and have often encouraged groups to select their mates based on gendered (social expectational) attributes.
Also, things like math scores and other academic achievements or gendered differences are not consistent across cultures. An example is this, If we encourage 'men' to play sports this gives their brain development an advantage in math.

As for lactation, there are chromosomal 'males' who develop breasts, some of which lactate.

The information I have showssuch a vast variation in human bodies and sexes that a binary gender system cannot account for

sorry, skipped a step with the cultural math scores: the gendered discrepensies between 'men's' and 'women's' math scores are inconsistent based on the gendered expectations of a culture.

Also, I wanted to add this quote that I enjoy very much and find quite relevant in the placement of my own opinions about gender and about sex:

"It is the people who fail to fit the pattern whose legitimacy is questioned rather than [the legitimacy] of the pattern itself." From, Women & Men in World Cultures, Laura F. Klein, 2004

I feel that this quote sums up the marginalization of intersexes, as well as the gender policing by different groups including among other things: homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, heterophobia, cd-phobia (cross-dresser phobia)

It also includes the tendancies of the medical and psychology fields to label gender deviances and sex (anatomy)deviances as disorders. I feel that it addresses the pattern from which they are believed to be deviating from.

I'm not sure how a sex chromosome pattern can be a "defect" if it occurs naturally. I would think that would just mean that it is another natural genetic chromosomal pattern. I think that this is a matter of how one chooses or is taught to look at these things though.

I must say, this is one of the most satisfying debates I've ever witnessed on Yahoo Q&A, as namecalling appears to be down to a minimum and personal, deeply thought out insights (even if they are not all in agreement) appear to be at an all time high.

Just to put this out there, my partner has xyx chromosome pattern, I don't find my partner defective, but rather, refreshingly human, and inspiringly defiant of social margins. My partner's anatomical sex is a natural human sex and I feel that those social labels of "defect" or "between sex" really loose their purpose because nothing is "broken" nothing needs to be "fixed" The excess feels socially selfish for pple to preserve a hierarchy of human bodies when

when we are all born human.

Answer 1

I can't help but protest against the line that gender is intrisinctly tied to biology. Gender is a performance and a role. There are people who play gender and who are non-gender, so how can those people be instrinsicly tied to biological defintions?

Essentially, biological determinism taken to its logical conclusion divorces human action from human responsibility, placing the blame - or the credit - for actions on the genes exclusively. Indeed, in this form biological determinism negates the idea of free will entirely, placing all behavior in the realm of control by the genes.

Biological determinism asserts that certain behaviours are justified and unchangeable because 'boys will be boys' (or 'girls will be girls'). There is little consideration of the wide variety of behaviours among members of each sex or how masculinity and femininity relate to each other in different settings.

Gender and Sex role socialisation states that gender behaviour is not innate, but socially conditioned - that boys and girls learn to be masculine and feminine through the different social expectations imposed on them by family and peers.

I think many people are getting confused between gender and sex and in this context breaking the uniqueness and individuality of people down to "steriotypes" in order to make sense of diversity. Meaning, that there are so many differences in behaviours and in people, that in order to make sense of anything, people have to steriotype other's.

Answer 2

Sex is determined by biological means and gender is a social construct. Yes there are many stereotypes with regards to genderization. This can be traced back to the Pythagorean Table of Opposites. Men were logical so women being the opposite had to be emotional. We know now that none of this is in fact true. Stereotypes abound because people don't bother to search for the truth. It is easier to group people into others to dehumanize them and thus be able to treat them oppresively without feeling any remorse. Easier for some to rationalize hate crimes this way as well, as you can always blame the victim.
To be born a man or a woman in any society is more than a simple biological fact. It is a biological fact with social implications. Women constitute a distinct social group, and the character of that group, long neglected by historians, has nothing to do with feminine "nature." "Gender" is the term now widely used to refer to those ways in which a culture reformulates what begins as a fact of nature. In this case being female is a matter of sex and genderizing solidifies the expectations of a patriarchal society and women are thus coerced into meeting this criteria, or punished by withdrawal of affection or resources.

Answer 3

Yes, we each have definite opinions on what is Masculine vs. Feminine. And, not everyone's opinion is the same. And, some people change their opinion over time.

What I've noticed is that people are much more accepting of females doing traditionally male activities (ie girls playing with trucks, women engineers, etc.) than of males doing traditionally female activities (ie boys playing with dolls, househusbands, etc.).

Seems that the opinion is girls are "advancing" by doing boy activities whereas boys are "regressing" by doing girl activities.

Hopefully, one day, we each will be allowed to be all that we can be in whatever type of activity best suits us personally.

Answer 4

While some people use broad stereotypes to justify actions or treatments, gender IS certainly related to biology. Denying this is senseless. Not only do you have anecdote after anecdote testifying to this, but you have plenty of medical literature that documents reproductive and physiological differences in women, which are a key element of gender to begin with. "Work" was originally just a type of physical labor of sorts, and differences in said biology led to a division of labor and thereby gender roles. Since female mammals produce milk, they generally (and if not, they probably should) take care of children. Likewise, men have larger muscles and less fat, inherently being meant to be less sedentary than females, so they were (and still are) relegated to work conditions.

Of course, times have changed. Immediacy is becoming less and less of a factor in the world and we certainly aren't in survival mode anymore. As a result, women are able to enter the workforce, men are able to take care of children, and both sexes are able to educate themselves and partake in thousands of activities. Industrialization and globalization pushes us more toward information, and biological differences are certainly less limiting than they have been in the past.

That long bit being noted...

BIOLOGY dictates that certain individuals will be better at certain things than others, and from this simple fact arises the concept of gender. It's really that simple- certain genders are charged with certain responsibilities as a result of their biology, and EXCEL at their roles (generally; biological problems or certain environmental influences can compromise this). Is it really sensible to throw something out in the name of equality if it will come at the cost of efficiency, especially if current system is not only working but potentially better than an equal measure for all? Human nature will inevitably lay waste to egalitarianism. Furthermore, complementary units combined are far more potent than any single unit on its own. Synergy in life is undeniable; a combined whole will (almost) always be greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to humans. I say almost in relation to certain crowd mentalities... but it is safe to say that a duo or trio working together (couples or friends) are more powerful together than alone.

Sorry for the long reply.

EDIT: Sorry, Baba Yaga, for not responding sooner. In truth, I checked it about 6 times over the period of a few hours (I hadn't seen this post during that period) and, unlike you, I actually sleep at a regular time instead of wasting the majority of my life on Yahoo! Answers.

Before I start my reply, however, thank you Amiko for posting a well-conceived question without hatred or unfounded criticism; thank you also for the humane and grateful responses you gave after we posters answered. Your question and answers are proof that one can disagree (even strongly) in an a decent manner. Thanks.

My response:

"I can't help but protest against the line that gender is intrisinctly tied to biology. Gender is a performance and a role. There are people who play gender and who are non-gender, so how can those people be instrinsicly tied to biological defintions?"

People are always going to vary, and choose different things. That said, people are intrinsically tied to biology in GENERAL. I'm pretty sure you could apply a statistical principle and say that at least 99.7% of the population, or three standard deviations, are male or female. This is an overwhelming supermajority, so it should be given some consideration.

Biological determinism hasn't been an accepted idea in the field of science for ages. Straight off of Wikipedia:

Biological determinism is the hypothesis that biological factors such as an organism's individual genes (as opposed to social or environmental factors) completely determine how a system behaves or changes over time.

Environment certainly has an effect on what humanity does and believes; information affects one's outlook no matter how neutral they try to be. I have never asserted otherwise and never believed otherwise; I just feel biology accounts for more in personality, interests, and aptitudes than the environment does.

Since that gets rid of that argument almost entirely, I would just like to say that while there are multiple sexes, those that are not male or female arise because of chromosomal defects, meaning that the individuals in question are undoubtedly mutated humans, XXX, XXY and the like included. Furthermore, if society were just completely changed to accomodate such individuals, we would lack cohesion and stability. Common language, common beliefs, established roles- they all help to create a cohesive unit.

Stereotypes do certainly make things easier to comprehend; they are also often based upon some truth or experiences. Whether those stereotypes are currently or ever were truly right is a whole other matter of debate, so I'll end this now. If there are any other criticisms from the peanut gallery (or maybe just the nutfarm), I'd be happy to expand upon my educated opinion and answer.

Answer 5

gender is generalized because its like a sterotype. while the sterotype doesnt pertain to all, the stero type is still true in alot of cases inluding race and gender. stereotypes are truth to a certain degree. thats where they come from. gender IS sex. male and female. and to deny there is no gender is rediculous.